Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Cc: "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pemberton@gmail.com>,
 "Legal Discuss" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
Message-Id: <F1751BD3-BA2E-4046-B91D-7D479F155168@jaguNET.com>
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
To: Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <2d12b2f00803271859o3a334665i4b025ce541e0a61f@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2)
Subject: Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:41:59 -0400
References: <2d12b2f00803260028j6b62daf6r2166a1587b90efe0@mail.gmail.com>
 <55afdc850803271705p6c378ca6k6163a3bf3dad9669@mail.gmail.com>
 <2d12b2f00803271859o3a334665i4b025ce541e0a61f@mail.gmail.com>


On Mar 27, 2008, at 9:59 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Niall Pemberton
> <niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> a) Adding a drafts/ directory to SVN to put this stuff in rather  
>>> than
>>> living in ~foo.
>>> b) Whether this page should exist? [maybe there already is one  
>>> that I
>>> just can't find?]
>>> c) What needs to be improved on this page. I'm sure it needs a lot  
>>> of
>>> work to i) get it all in there and ii) make sure we're not  
>>> overstating
>>> anything.
>>
>> One scenario not covered - and perhaps its not permitted - what about
>> if someone wants to copy some code from another source that has a
>> permissable license? For example Spring is licensed under AL 2.0 - so
>> in theory I could copy some Spring code into an ASF project with no
>> problem. I guess the answer would be "go ask the spring people to  
>> sign
>> a CLA" - but what happens if I get no response from Spring?
>> License-wise this is OK - but I guess/assume policy wise its not
>> allowed by the ASF?
>
> It remains under the Spring instance of the AL 2.0 license. So is
> covered by the third party bit.  Might need mentioning.
>
>>

A CLA, or grant, simply allows the ASF to (re)license the s/w
under the AL; If the code is already under the AL, or a similar
license, a CLA/grant is not required since we do not need
to relicense the code, since it is already compatible. We simply
continue to honor the license, with whatever "other" conditions
may apply (like noting in NOTICE)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org